Can someone explain what "1st ed feel" is?

[migo]

Thus, dwarves, elves, and dragons aren't a problem. Windy corridors are.

Daniel

Metal deposits don't lay themselves down in a straight line. The digging follows the metal.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

This is a feature, not a bug. I for one am bored to tears of everyone trying to do the smart thing, or the clever thing, because if they don't the GM will mash their character into putty. I want a character to go after the Big Bad when he really shouldn't, and get beat up but survive. I want them to charge in when they should flee. I want them to be able to play the Stupid Card if that's what makes things more fun and not reward them with character death.

Personally when one of my players plays the Stupid Card, I tend to play the Roll A New Character Card. I flatly decline to reward stupidity or recklessness with success. The player will be allowed a roll, but the odds will be stacked against them.

This is an interesting question, often-debated on messageboards, and I suspect it won't be resolved here - but it is fun to talk about.

One view of Madman's attitude is that he is Rewarding players for roleplaying their characters instead of min/maxing their chances of success. People who espouse this attitude would tend to characterise my own, less forgiving approach as Punishing roleplayers and encouraging the min/maxers.

Personally, I disagree with this. I tend to be of the view that good roleplaying is its own reward, and doesn't need me stacking the odds unrealistically in its favour to make it worthwhile. I also feel that flamboyantly risky actions are not necessarily the hallmark of a good or mature roleplayer.

What do you mean by Player Skill?

There are as many definitions of Player Skill as there are players, of course, and we won't settle that question in this thread.

Briefly, I would start by separating a skilled player from a skilled roleplayer. The two are not incompatible, but they certainly aren't the same thing!

Once you've separated those two concepts, I believe that most people would agree that a skilled player is one who:-

Solves problems creatively
Plans ahead
Avoids unprofitable encounters
Avoids unnecessary risks
Pick up on clues and slight hints
Tends to think before acting
Tends to take captives where feasible
Avoids traps and potential ambushes
Finds the easiest and safest way to the objective
Co-operates with the other characters
Tries to prepare tactics for high-risk situations like battles wherever possible

 

[maddman75]

One view of Madman's attitude is that he is Rewarding players for roleplaying their characters instead of min/maxing their chances of success. People who espouse this attitude would tend to characterise my own, less forgiving approach as Punishing roleplayers and encouraging the min/maxers.

Yes, this is it exactly. I don't care about smart play, I care about play that is true to the character.

Personally, I disagree with this. I tend to be of the view that good roleplaying is its own reward, and doesn't need me stacking the odds unrealistically in its favour to make it worthwhile. I also feel that flamboyantly risky actions are not necessarily the hallmark of a good or mature roleplayer.

Bolded the important bit. Realism isn't a goal for me. My goal is emulation of whatever genre I'm going for. Which is generally something cinematic and action-packed.

There are as many definitions of Player Skill as there are players, of course, and we won't settle that question in this thread.

Briefly, I would start by separating a skilled player from a skilled roleplayer. The two are not incompatible, but they certainly aren't the same thing!

Once you've separated those two concepts, I believe that most people would agree that a skilled player is one who:-

Solves problems creatively
Plans ahead
Avoids unprofitable encounters
Avoids unnecessary risks
Pick up on clues and slight hints
Tends to think before acting
Tends to take captives where feasible
Avoids traps and potential ambushes
Finds the easiest and safest way to the objective
Co-operates with the other characters
Tries to prepare tactics for high-risk situations like battles wherever possible

I would say that a skilled player is less valued to me than a skilled roleplayer. Does a skilled roleplayer as you've described make the game more fun? IMO, no! He's like an old granny, carefully plotting out every action, looking before he leaps, and always eating his vegetables. This is not the stuff out of which heros are made.

I'd prefer a skilled roleplayer, which I would say has the following properties.
Able to think from the perspective of his character
Tends to ignore the rules and do what feels right for the character
Perfectly willing to screw his own character over if it makes a good story
Thinks on his feet and is able to make quick decisions.
Works to not overshadow other PCs, and indeed to play off them
Is Proactive rather than Reactive, willing to instigate plots instead of wait for them

Overall though I'd say the best skill is knowing what style the other players and the DM have. I'm sure your group has a lot of fun, but I'm not sure I'd enjoy your game. Likewise, you may not like mine all that much.

Actually, my players still have some old-school notions I'm trying to get out of them. I want to hand them the reins, hand them the power, but they tend to be reluctant. Still, its getting better.

 

[rogueattorney]

Personally when one of my players plays the Stupid Card, I tend to play the Roll A New Character Card.

Sigged, and I agree 100% on your whole post.

P&P's post and Maddman's response do a great job delineating the differing play styles - P&P, the 'old-school' 70's D&D style - Maddman, the storytelling, Dragonlance, WW style. Neither wrong (although I'm in P&P's camp). The funny thing is that BOTH of these styles were pretty thouroughly explored in 1e products, so neither really tell us which is '1e feel'.

R.A.

 

[fanboy2000]

I prefer something in-between. I do want my players to take risks, gambles really, but I don't want them be stupid. Because, like maddman, I prefer playing a game with Heros. Would the end to Star Wars have been the same if Luke kept his targeting computer on? Nope, he wouldn't have trusted himself and missed.

But, it took a lot of careful planing to get the run on the Death Star.

 

[Ravellion]

P&P, the 'old-school' 70's D&D style - Maddman, the storytelling, Dragonlance, WW style.

I don't think Maddman will reply anytime soon. I think you've just given him a heart attack.

Dragonlance/storytelling style =/= cinematic!

Put me in the cinematic camp. I think the problem solving part of the game is boring, because I find the problems are never *just* difficult enough in D&D. Either they are easy, or they stump the players, who then sit around the table for an hour discussing plan after plan after plan... *yawn* I had a 2e DM who was really into puzzles, traps, having the players come up with a plan for hours even though the game-time would only allow a few seconds at most... aargh! I have plenty of meetings which don't lead to any decisions at work dagnabbit! At the gaming table I want powerful blows, cool camera angles, quick paced action and the indiana jones tune at key moments.

And I haven't met a single DM in the Netherlands who caters to that style

Rav

 

[T. Foster]

At the gaming table I want powerful blows, cool camera angles, quick paced action and the indiana jones tune at key moments.

That's interesting, because I don't want that style at all, either as player or DM. I'm very much of the same school of thought as Papers & Paychecks and rogueattorney (which is no surprise, since I know both of them very well from other boards) -- I love the "wargamerly" crunch of tactics and problem-solving and players matching wits and skill with the DM. But I certainly know where you're coming from because one of the longest-standing players in my old group was just like you -- he loved coming up with great lines and lived for memorable 'heroic' scenes and would frequently start singing his character's theme song (though for him it wasn't Indiana Jones, but rather "Zorro, the Gay Blade") at key moments, and his eyes would glaze over immediately at both puzzles and big tactical-based battles. I'd never really thought of it at the time, but he and I obviously had a completely different set of 'kicks' (or, if you prefer, 'creative agenda') -- it's a wonder we were able to game together (and both have so much fun) for 12 years when we were constantly trying to steer the game in opposite directions...

 

[The Shaman]

I prefer something in-between.

I agree - too much of one or the other is, well, too much of one or the other.

If one aspect of first-edition feel is site-based, "wargamey" adventures, then I definitely create adventures that follow that model. At the same time, I want the characters to be heroes, take risks, make the bold gesture or the 'cinematic' (ugh, I'm growing to dislike that word a lot) move - the skill system of d20 makes the latter easy to resolve even as other characters are pursuing their 'tactical' approach to encounters.

Adventurers should be cagey, cunning, tactically-minded - it sort of comes with the territory. But that hardly makes for exciting play, so I reward good roleplay that includes taking chances, mostly by not using these moments to maximize opportunities to crush the player's initiative - if that means letting an AoO go by because some mook was so surprised to see the adventurer swinging from the tapestry, then so be it.

The middle of the road is where the driveable surface is - too far to either extreme and you end up in a ditch.

 

[Ravellion]

I agree - too much of one or the other is, well, too much of one or the other.

Oh, even I agree there. Temple of Doom was the worst Indiana Jones movie because you simply don't get a breather: even the feast was er... thrilling

If you jsut have the indiana Jones theme for an hour and a half, you end up with a film whch doesnt't have distinguishing action at all... and has a very monotonous soundtrack

Rav

 

[Virel]

Sigged, and I agree 100% on your whole post.

P&P's post and Maddman's response do a great job delineating the differing play styles - P&P, the 'old-school' 70's D&D style - Maddman, the storytelling, Dragonlance, WW style. Neither wrong (although I'm in P&P's camp). The funny thing is that BOTH of these styles were pretty thouroughly explored in 1e products, so neither really tell us which is '1e feel'.

R.A.

I think the best campaigns have a combination of both styles and can move back and forth between them. I agree 100% that both styles are present in 1st ed AD&D. Most of my players will stay true to character unless it's clearly a serious deadly situation.

When majority of the current group played Tomb of Horrors they were dead serious because the rep of the ToH was known to them in and out of game. Most of them strive to stay in character the majority of the time. Fighters with and intel of 6 aren't master tacticians IMC world. If player wants a character that can be they'll arrange their stats so they at least get 13 in intel etc.